From Barry Alvarez press conference this morning. I will still be worried about Chryst until Wisky hires a new coach, but this, along with the quotes from Chapman last night make me feel better....

"I asked some very close friends of mine to help Paul get that job.

"Paul has already come out and said he is committed to Pitt, and I think he should be committed to Pitt. I don't think it'd be right for him to leave after one year. I wouldn't feel right and I don't think it'd be appropriate for me to hire him back after I asked someone to do me a favor and helped him get that job.

cheesesteakwithegg wrote:From Barry Alvarez press conference this morning. I will still be worried about Chryst until Wisky hires a new coach, but this, along with the quotes from Chapman last night make me feel better....

"I asked some very close friends of mine to help Paul get that job.

"Paul has already come out and said he is committed to Pitt, and I think he should be committed to Pitt. I don't think it'd be right for him to leave after one year. I wouldn't feel right and I don't think it'd be appropriate for me to hire him back after I asked someone to do me a favor and helped him get that job.

The deal includes a "grant of rights" agreement, meaning if a Big 12 school leaves for another league in the next 13 years, that school's media rights, including revenue, would remain with the Big 12 and not its new conference.

The grant of rights is huge for the Big 12's stability. Just last year, it appeared the league would implode by losing Texas and Oklahoma to the Pac-12. However, both schools stayed. The Big 12 did lose Missouri and Texas A&M to the SEC but replaced them this season with West Virginia and TCU.

As far as anyone knows, there is no GOR in the ACC. Its close to a lock that the BigXII will continue to exist as is (at minimum) through 2025. Even if those schools were to want out, there would be no reason for the remaining members to agree to it.

The deal includes a "grant of rights" agreement, meaning if a Big 12 school leaves for another league in the next 13 years, that school's media rights, including revenue, would remain with the Big 12 and not its new conference.

The grant of rights is huge for the Big 12's stability. Just last year, it appeared the league would implode by losing Texas and Oklahoma to the Pac-12. However, both schools stayed. The Big 12 did lose Missouri and Texas A&M to the SEC but replaced them this season with West Virginia and TCU.

As far as anyone knows, there is no GOR in the ACC. Its close to a lock that the BigXII will continue to exist as is (at minimum) through 2025. Even if those schools were to want out, there would be no reason for the remaining members to agree to it.

The GOR is as enforceable as an exit fee, meaning it's not enforceable. It will be easy enough to lawyer away whenever Texas/OU decide to jump at the Pac 12 cash. If you think a judge is going to reduce the amount MD will have to pay, then logically you should think a judge will set a liquidated damages amount for the GOR. When the time comes, it won't stop Texas and OU from leaving.

The deal includes a "grant of rights" agreement, meaning if a Big 12 school leaves for another league in the next 13 years, that school's media rights, including revenue, would remain with the Big 12 and not its new conference.

The grant of rights is huge for the Big 12's stability. Just last year, it appeared the league would implode by losing Texas and Oklahoma to the Pac-12. However, both schools stayed. The Big 12 did lose Missouri and Texas A&M to the SEC but replaced them this season with West Virginia and TCU.

As far as anyone knows, there is no GOR in the ACC. Its close to a lock that the BigXII will continue to exist as is (at minimum) through 2025. Even if those schools were to want out, there would be no reason for the remaining members to agree to it.

The GOR is as enforceable as an exit fee, meaning it's not enforceable. It will be easy enough to lawyer away whenever Texas/OU decide to jump at the Pac 12 cash. If you think a judge is going to reduce the amount MD will have to pay, then logically you should think a judge will set a liquidated damages amount for the GOR. When the time comes, it won't stop Texas and OU from leaving.

I assumed this would be your response, but was hoping you wouldn't. We both know there is a difference between the GOR and the exit fee from an irreparable harm/injunctive standpoint. The exit fee specifically contemplates the exit from a conference and assesses a monetary value to such an exit (which precludes injunctive relief out of the box); the GOR does not. In fact, the GOR says you can leave, you just can't take your rights.

Nor do I see a judge "setting" a "liquidated damages" amount, because: what? That's not what liquidated damages are. Are you saying that the resulting monetary damages from a team exiting a conference can be quantified like any other breach of contract dispute? Because I think the answer to this last question (anywhere from "maybe" if you get really, really good experts and the right jury to "GTFO of here") is precisely why injunctive relief in the GOR setting is the more likely request/result. I don't think the comparison between the exit fee litigation and a potential GOR suit is apples to apples.

All kidding aside, Rocco's scenario could play out as well. I just think that the Kansas State's of the world would be forced to seek specific performance of their agreement rather than monetary damages as a final stand against this madness. Without seeing the GOR, its tough to predict.

slappybrown wrote:Nor do I see a judge "setting" a "liquidated damages" amount, because: what? That's not what liquidated damages are. Are you saying that the resulting monetary damages from a team exiting a conference can be quantified like any other breach of contract dispute? Because I think the answer to this last question (anywhere from "maybe" if you get really, really good experts and the right jury to "GTFO of here") is precisely why injunctive relief in the GOR setting is the more likely request/result. I don't think the comparison between the exit fee litigation and a potential GOR suit is apples to apples.

It's actually pretty easy to quantify damages- it's the value of the TV contract, expanded travel, etc. The fact is, you can quantify it. And if it can be quantified, then it can be paid off if necessary. Look at it this way- why would Texas sign something they couldn't escape if necessary? The GOR is basically a bigger exit fee.

All kidding aside, Rocco's scenario could play out as well. I just think that the Kansas State's of the world would be forced to seek specific performance of their agreement rather than monetary damages as a final stand against this madness. Without seeing the GOR, its tough to predict.

Specific performance is generally only granted if there's no possible way the other party can be made whole. K-State can be made whole by Texas writing a giant check.

slappybrown wrote:Nor do I see a judge "setting" a "liquidated damages" amount, because: what? That's not what liquidated damages are. Are you saying that the resulting monetary damages from a team exiting a conference can be quantified like any other breach of contract dispute? Because I think the answer to this last question (anywhere from "maybe" if you get really, really good experts and the right jury to "GTFO of here") is precisely why injunctive relief in the GOR setting is the more likely request/result. I don't think the comparison between the exit fee litigation and a potential GOR suit is apples to apples.

It's actually pretty easy to quantify damages- it's the value of the TV contract, expanded travel, etc. The fact is, you can quantify it. And if it can be quantified, then it can be paid off if necessary. Look at it this way- why would Texas sign something they couldn't escape if necessary? The GOR is basically a bigger exit fee.

That. From finance standpoint, both the exit fee and GOR equal cash outflows from the respective university. Granted, the first is a one-time payment, while the other is a stream of future cash flows, but it would be EXTREMELY easy for me to express the GOR in terms of present dollar value estimate, adjusted for all the risks and uncertainties. Extremely.

slappybrown wrote:Nor do I see a judge "setting" a "liquidated damages" amount, because: what? That's not what liquidated damages are. Are you saying that the resulting monetary damages from a team exiting a conference can be quantified like any other breach of contract dispute? Because I think the answer to this last question (anywhere from "maybe" if you get really, really good experts and the right jury to "GTFO of here") is precisely why injunctive relief in the GOR setting is the more likely request/result. I don't think the comparison between the exit fee litigation and a potential GOR suit is apples to apples.

It's actually pretty easy to quantify damages- it's the value of the TV contract, expanded travel, etc. The fact is, you can quantify it. And if it can be quantified, then it can be paid off if necessary. Look at it this way- why would Texas sign something they couldn't escape if necessary? The GOR is basically a bigger exit fee.

We all know nothing is iron-clad, but the posture and claims asserted in the two litigations are completely different IMO.

All kidding aside, Rocco's scenario could play out as well. I just think that the Kansas State's of the world would be forced to seek specific performance of their agreement rather than monetary damages as a final stand against this madness. Without seeing the GOR, its tough to predict.

Specific performance is generally only granted if there's no possible way the other party can be made whole. K-State can be made whole by Texas writing a giant check.

Really? What if KState can't get into one of the 4 power conferences in the 4conf-16team scenario? What's the value?

All kidding aside, Rocco's scenario could play out as well. I just think that the Kansas State's of the world would be forced to seek specific performance of their agreement rather than monetary damages as a final stand against this madness. Without seeing the GOR, its tough to predict.

Specific performance is generally only granted if there's no possible way the other party can be made whole. K-State can be made whole by Texas writing a giant check.

Really? What if KState can't get into one of the 4 power conferences in the 4conf-16team scenario? What's the value?

The mount of money K-State gets in their current TV deal through 2025 or however long their contract runs, minus whatever money K-State gets in the TV deal in their new conference. That's your damage. It's a large number, but it's a number. It takes a lot for a court to force someone to follow through with a contract when the damages are essentially financial. I haven't taken a contracts course in a while but SP is generally only used when there's no way to replace what was called for in the contract, like land or certain special items. Money isn't unique.

All kidding aside, Rocco's scenario could play out as well. I just think that the Kansas State's of the world would be forced to seek specific performance of their agreement rather than monetary damages as a final stand against this madness. Without seeing the GOR, its tough to predict.

Specific performance is generally only granted if there's no possible way the other party can be made whole. K-State can be made whole by Texas writing a giant check.

Really? What if KState can't get into one of the 4 power conferences in the 4conf-16team scenario? What's the value?

The mount of money K-State gets in their current TV deal through 2025 or however long their contract runs, minus whatever money K-State gets in the TV deal in their new conference. That's your damage. It's a large number, but it's a number. It takes a lot for a court to force someone to follow through with a contract when the damages are essentially financial. I haven't taken a contracts course in a while but SP is generally only used when there's no way to replace what was called for in the contract, like land or certain special items. Money isn't unique.

The damage I was going for in my scenario is the damage caused by lack of access, not dollars. How do you price potential access to the playoff and the diminished possibilities of same when you're not in the BigXII?

Also, my understanding of the grant of rights is that the BigXII owns the rights and are in the BigXII's name. Say Texas leaves -- do they sue for rescission? DO they sue the media partners who pay on those rights and demand that the payments not be made to the BigXII?

slappybrown wrote:The damage I was going for in my scenario is the damage caused by lack of access, not dollars. How do you price potential access to the playoff and the diminished possibilities of same when you're not in the BigXII?

Also, my understanding of the grant of rights is that the BigXII owns the rights and are in the BigXII's name. Say Texas leaves -- do they sue for rescission? DO they sue the media partners who pay on those rights and demand that the payments not be made to the BigXII?

They'll still have access to the playoff dollars. The 5 remaining conferences signed a TV contract with ESPN where they all get paid. That's why the Big East continues to be treated like a power conference until 2014 even though it's not the same conference as when the BCS deal was done. As long as a Big 12 exists, they'll have access to the money, the bowl agreement w/the SEC, etc.

The ACC, Pac 12, B1G, Big 12 and SEC are each going to get large chunks. Once that deal is signed, it's not changing for 12 years which is the life of the TV contract. If UT leaves then the contracts will probably go away, but that's not the court's problem.

I imagine if UT leaves either they'll sue the conference or the conference members will sue them, and it all gets worked out with a large settlement out of court.

slappybrown wrote:The damage I was going for in my scenario is the damage caused by lack of access, not dollars. How do you price potential access to the playoff and the diminished possibilities of same when you're not in the BigXII?

Also, my understanding of the grant of rights is that the BigXII owns the rights and are in the BigXII's name. Say Texas leaves -- do they sue for rescission? DO they sue the media partners who pay on those rights and demand that the payments not be made to the BigXII?

They'll still have access to the playoff dollars. The 5 remaining conferences signed a TV contract with ESPN where they all get paid. That's why the Big East continues to be treated like a power conference until 2014 even though it's not the same conference as when the BCS deal was done. As long as a Big 12 exists, they'll have access to the money, the bowl agreement w/the SEC, etc.

The ACC, Pac 12, B1G, Big 12 and SEC are each going to get large chunks. Once that deal is signed, it's not changing for 12 years which is the life of the TV contract. If UT leaves then the contracts will probably go away, but that's not the court's problem.

I imagine if UT leaves either they'll sue the conference or the conference members will sue them, and it all gets worked out with a large settlement out of court.

I think that's exactly the point -- that is the problem confronting a court in the lawsuit, and precisely the reason why they'd seek injunctive relief. At 4conf-16teams, the damage is not purely monetary anymore, as you've reached the end game of realignment.

Think of it as akin to a grant of a license for a patent. Assuming performance by the licensee, the licensor's revocation of that license can be remedied by injunctive relief. Its not a perfect analogy obviously, but I think assuming that the schools left out in a realignment endgame will just take some cash and move on is unlikely.

slappybrown wrote:The damage I was going for in my scenario is the damage caused by lack of access, not dollars. How do you price potential access to the playoff and the diminished possibilities of same when you're not in the BigXII?

Also, my understanding of the grant of rights is that the BigXII owns the rights and are in the BigXII's name. Say Texas leaves -- do they sue for rescission? DO they sue the media partners who pay on those rights and demand that the payments not be made to the BigXII?

They'll still have access to the playoff dollars. The 5 remaining conferences signed a TV contract with ESPN where they all get paid. That's why the Big East continues to be treated like a power conference until 2014 even though it's not the same conference as when the BCS deal was done. As long as a Big 12 exists, they'll have access to the money, the bowl agreement w/the SEC, etc.

The ACC, Pac 12, B1G, Big 12 and SEC are each going to get large chunks. Once that deal is signed, it's not changing for 12 years which is the life of the TV contract. If UT leaves then the contracts will probably go away, but that's not the court's problem.

I imagine if UT leaves either they'll sue the conference or the conference members will sue them, and it all gets worked out with a large settlement out of court.

I think that's exactly the point -- that is the problem confronting a court in the lawsuit, and precisely the reason why they'd seek injunctive relief. At 4conf-16teams, the damage is not purely monetary anymore, as you've reached the end game of realignment.

Think of it as akin to a grant of a license for a patent. Assuming performance by the licensee, the licensor's revocation of that license can be remedied by injunctive relief. Its not a perfect analogy obviously, but I think assuming that the schools left out in a realignment endgame will just take some cash and move on is unlikely.

Doesn't matter. The GOR applies to the media contract and nothing else. You can keep throwing around legal terms but ultimately it's about money, and can be remedied with money. K-State will still get to play football and the Big 12 has a guaranteed spot in the postseason for the next decade, even if the conference at that point is K-State, Kansas and WVU playing each other.

Bielema gave an interesting interview on Mike and Mike this morning, talking about how his move to Arkansas, while it gave him a minimal raise, was more so he would a) be able to coach in the SEC and (perhaps most notably) b) have enough money to hire a quality assistant coaching staff. Evidently his budget was only $300,000 at Wisky

slappybrown wrote:The damage I was going for in my scenario is the damage caused by lack of access, not dollars. How do you price potential access to the playoff and the diminished possibilities of same when you're not in the BigXII?

Also, my understanding of the grant of rights is that the BigXII owns the rights and are in the BigXII's name. Say Texas leaves -- do they sue for rescission? DO they sue the media partners who pay on those rights and demand that the payments not be made to the BigXII?

They'll still have access to the playoff dollars. The 5 remaining conferences signed a TV contract with ESPN where they all get paid. That's why the Big East continues to be treated like a power conference until 2014 even though it's not the same conference as when the BCS deal was done. As long as a Big 12 exists, they'll have access to the money, the bowl agreement w/the SEC, etc.

The ACC, Pac 12, B1G, Big 12 and SEC are each going to get large chunks. Once that deal is signed, it's not changing for 12 years which is the life of the TV contract. If UT leaves then the contracts will probably go away, but that's not the court's problem.

I imagine if UT leaves either they'll sue the conference or the conference members will sue them, and it all gets worked out with a large settlement out of court.

I think that's exactly the point -- that is the problem confronting a court in the lawsuit, and precisely the reason why they'd seek injunctive relief. At 4conf-16teams, the damage is not purely monetary anymore, as you've reached the end game of realignment.

Think of it as akin to a grant of a license for a patent. Assuming performance by the licensee, the licensor's revocation of that license can be remedied by injunctive relief. Its not a perfect analogy obviously, but I think assuming that the schools left out in a realignment endgame will just take some cash and move on is unlikely.

Doesn't matter. The GOR applies to the media contract and nothing else. You can keep throwing around legal terms but ultimately it's about money, and can be remedied with money. K-State will still get to play football and the Big 12 has a guaranteed spot in the postseason for the next decade, even if the conference at that point is K-State, Kansas and WVU playing each other.

No, I think it does very much matter, and I think you're ignoring how a suit is framed over a licensing/GOR situation versus exit fee litigation. But ok, we disagree.

shafnutz05 wrote:Bielema gave an interesting interview on Mike and Mike this morning, talking about how his move to Arkansas, while it gave him a minimal raise, was more so he would a) be able to coach in the SEC and (perhaps most notably) b) have enough money to hire a quality assistant coaching staff. Evidently his budget was only $300,000 at Wisky

When Pitt hired Chryst, Chryst took like 3 or 4 Wisconsin assistants with him. At the time it seemed kind of odd that he could convince those guys to go with him to Pitt, but now it makes a little more sense. Its hard to believe pitt would be willing to pay more for them though.

shafnutz05 wrote:Bielema gave an interesting interview on Mike and Mike this morning, talking about how his move to Arkansas, while it gave him a minimal raise, was more so he would a) be able to coach in the SEC and (perhaps most notably) b) have enough money to hire a quality assistant coaching staff. Evidently his budget was only $300,000 at Wisky